Understanding Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design for Improving Biodiversity Conservation in Cities: Case study of UK

(1)

Master Thesis | Erasmus Mundus Masters Programme PLANET Europe

The Role of Severn Estuary Partnership in Emerging

Marine Planning in England and Wales

Zahra Fatima June 2016

MSc European Spatial Planning & Environment Policy | Cardiff University MSc Urban & Regional Planning | Radboud Univeristy

Supervised by:

Dr. Andrew Flynn | Cardiff University Prof. Duncan Liefferink | Radboud University

(2)

The Role of Severn Estuary Partnership in Emerging Marine Planning in England and Wales

Zahra Fatima

Student Number (Cardiff University) c1472288 Student Number (Radboud University) s4509331

MSC PLANET EUROPE

EUROPEAN SPATIAL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY RADBOUD UNIVERSITY, NIJMEGEN, THE NETHERLANDS

CARDIFF UNIVERSITY, CARDIFF, UNITED KINGDOM

SUPERVISED BY:

DR. ANDREW FLYNN

CARDIFF UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF GEOGRAPHY AND PLANNING

PROF. DUNCAN LIEFFERINK

RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN, GEOGRAPHY, SPATIAL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, I would like to convey my gratitude to my two supervisors, Dr. Andrew Flynn and Prof. Duncan Liefferink for their timely support and useful comments throughout the process which made my thesis more focused and structured. I am also thankful for Prof. Rhoda Ballinger, for her interest in my thesis topic, useful guidelines and providing me with the opportunities to get in touch with potential interviewees.

I would like to thank you to my interviewees for taking out sometime from their busy schedule to provide me with their insights over the partnership working. Lastly, I like to thanks my friends from Planet Europe and outside the group to keep supporting and pushing me to finish this project.

(4)

Over the period of two decades, integrated coastal management has been changed quite extensively in UK. Before the formal initiative of marine spatial planning at national level, there was a non-statutory approach to coastal management. The non-statutory approach to coastal management was based on cooperation of various coastal stakeholders through coastal partnerships. On the other hand, emerging marine spatial planning under devolved administrations of UK has an impact on the working of non-statutory coastal partnerships. In this research, the case-study of Severn Estuary Partnership has been taken in order to study the effects of developing marine spatial planning in England and Wales upon Severn Estuary Partnership. Therefore to position Severn Estuary Partnership in this newly developed marine planning process in England and Wales, this research has used the conceptual framework of network governance. Under the network governance conceptual framework, five organizational properties have been used to analyze the importance of Severn Estuary Partnership in Severn estuary region. This research has argued that even with the currently in-process marine planning in England and Wales, there is a slight shift and ‘new focus’ of SEP has been developed. This statutory marine planning process actually has strengthened the facilitator role of SEP because statutory organizations in England and Wales responsible for marine planning rely on SEP to take their view forward to the Severn Estuary stakeholders.

(9)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Coastal partnerships in the UK are formed from various governmental bodies, local authorities and private sector organizations (Stojanovic and Barker, 2008). The coastal partnerships are known by various terminologies such as coastal partnerships, fora or networks. Nevertheless, their approach is more or less similar—i.e. integrated management of the coast through coordinated actions and equitable solutions (Stojanovic and Barker, 2008). The growth of coastal partnerships in the UK began in the early 1990s due to the Estuaries Initiatives1 programme to develop an estuary management plan. The core objective of coastal partnerships is to bring together all relevant and concerned estuary stakeholders to exchange and agree on common management of a particular estuary. This facilitator role of coastal partnerships remained intact until 2009. In 2009, the UK national government passed the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA), which set the statutory basis for marine management of Britain’s inshore and offshore coastal management. Moreover, MCAA also set the bases for the establishment of marine management organization (MMO), a licensing system and marine nature conservation zones (MNZs). However, a significant development in UK marine planning was started with the Marine Policy Statement (MPS) in 2011. This policy statement provided a ‘high level policy context’ for national and sub-national marine plans. The MPS is a national framework for preparing marine-related plans in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The objectives of the Marine Policy Statement are promoting sustainable economic development, mitigating climate change and ocean acidification, and enhancing societal benefits of the marine areas.

This study is an attempt to develop the relationship between the UK’s developing marine planning and coastal partnerships through the conceptual framework of network governance. In this regard, a case study of the Severn Estuary Partnership (SEP) has been undertaken. The marine planning process of England and Wales holds significant importance for the Severn estuary, as the estuary lies between two different planning systems—i.e. England and Wales. The SEP is an independent initiative established in 1995 by local authorities. The SEP stakeholders are from both the Welsh and the English side of the estuary.

1_{Estuaries Initiatives was an English Nature (now Environmental Agency) programme started in 1992 which aimed} to raise estuary awareness, seeking an integrated approach to estuary management and encouraging sustainable development (Knowles and Myatt-Bell, 2008).

(10)

So far, the academic literature over coastal partnerships’ role in wider marine planning framework is quite ambiguous (Ballinger, 2009; Fletcher, 2007; Fletcher et al., 2013; Jones and Burgess 2005; McGlashan, 2003; Stojanovic and Barker, 2008). Moreover, the academic debate over coastal partnerships is divided: some argue that these initiatives have weak status in the wider yet developing marine planning. This is because of unstable funding and lack of formal recognition on a national level (Fletcher, 2007; Fletcher et al. 2013; Hoare, 2002; McKenna & Cooper, 2006). On the other hand, some argue that coastal partnerships have brought about collaboration and elements of long-term planning. For example, through empirical research, Stojanovic and Ballinger (2009) have provided a comparative analysis of four UK initiatives, including Essex Estuaries, Ceredigion Coast, Severn Estuary and Chichester Harbour. They summarized in their results that coastal partnerships have transformed coastal management and ‘promoting long term, collaborative, participatory and ecologically sustainable approaches’ (Stojanovic and Ballinger 2009, p. 61). Moreover, coastal partnerships in the UK provide a platform for stakeholders’ engagement while highlighting the issues—i.e. a ‘politically elegant way of coalescing interests groups around issues in that place’ (Stojanovic and Ballinger, p. 61, 2009). Nevertheless, quite recently, the development of the national marine planning in the UK raises questions about the usefulness of the coastal partnerships, especially once the marine plans from devolved administrations are in place (Fletcher et al., 2013).

Therefore, this research has taken the later view of the scholarly debate—i.e. it aims to contribute to the academic debate regarding the usefulness of coastal partnerships in developing marine planning process. In this regard, a case study of the Severn Estuary Partnership (SEP) has been undertaken, utilizing the network governance framework. The methodology to collect data is based upon semi-structured interviews with key statutory organizations responsible for marine planning in England and Wales.

Rationale of the research

The following paragraphs describe the basis for the rationale of the research.

The study explains why marine spatial planning has been perceived as a most suitable approach to regulate seas instead of an individualistic sectoral approach. Additionally, it looks at how an integration and participatory approach is a most important element of marine spatial planning.

(11)

Secondly, the emergence of marine planning in the UK is discussed, along with how it has set the legal basis for integrated marine and coastal zone management. Moreover, what does that mean for Severn Estuary marine planning?

Thirdly, the Severn estuary (SE) region and Severn Estuary Partnership (SEP) are briefly introduced. The study examines why the SEP is suitable for this study, considering how England and Wales’ marine planning frameworks have taken the shape of a network to achieve integrated marine planning for the Severn estuary region. Hence to achieve this goal, the SEP plays a significant role in the SE region in terms of stakeholder engagement.

Marine spatial planning

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) initiative on marine spatial planning (MSP) has described MSP in very concise yet clear terms:

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a process of analyzing and allocating parts of three-dimensional marine spaces (or ecosystems) to specific uses or objectives, to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process (Marine Spatial Planning Initiative, UNESCO)

The concept of MSP has developed quite recently, mainly due to growing concerns over climate change and degradation of the environment. MSP has been identified as a promising way to achieve simultaneously social, economic and environmental objectives similar to land-use planning, through more ‘rational and scientifically-based organization of three dimensional ocean space’ (Douvere 2008, p.766). Moreover, two main factors have been identified which indicate the need for a holistic approach towards seas. Firstly, MSP recognises the increased human activity in seas—i.e. sea sprawl and increasing demands for ocean space. Previously, activities related to the sea were mostly based on a single sector approach. For example, the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has provided a framework for the allocation of the ocean space. Similarly, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has provided a delineation for sea pollution. Furthermore, the EU directives on conservation of birds and habitats have also provided the bases for European marine conservation for birds. Hence these single sector approaches lack consideration of the policies and plans of other users of the sea that may be conflicting or compatible (Douvere, 2010). The second most significant factor in the MSP approach is the integrated ecosystem-based management of marine areas in a

(12)

comprehensive and coordinated approach (Douvere, 2008). Therefore, MSP provides a plan based on the current and future approach to marine space.

In the UK, since the 1990s, marine spatial planning and its implementation has been largely based on local and regional coastal initiatives in the form of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) (Stojanovic, 2008). As mentioned above, those initiatives usually rely on the voluntary participation of private, government and civil stakeholders. The main goal of these bottom-up initiatives is to provide ‘multi-stakeholder approaches to marine planning and management’ (Stojanovic, 2008). However, ICZM in the UK has changed significantly due to the establishment of MCAA. The voluntary approach towards ICZM has become more institutionalized as it is now superseded by the UK’s national marine planning. The Marine and Coastal Access Act sets out a new approach towards marine management through an ‘ecosystem-based plan-led system for marine activities’ (Fletcher 2013, p.2). This act is considered a major landmark in the UK’s MSP, which instituted changes including creation of the MMO, streamlining of the marine licensing system, environmentally focused inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, access to marine data and information, and supported coastal and estuary management (Government UK, 2009). This act was supplemented by greater policy articulation in the form of the Marine Policy Statement, which has been adopted by three devolved governments: Northern Ireland, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Government in 2011. The adaptation of the MPS places a statutory obligation on devolved administrations to develop marine plans under their own marine planning arrangements and mechanisms (Fletcher, 2013).

With regard to the Severn estuary, the estuary comes under the marine planning framework of England and Wales. The following table explains the marine planning process around the Severn estuary.

Table 1: Marine planning around the Severn estuary Marine Spatial Planning

Framework

England Wales

Marine plan areas 11 All Welsh waters

Responsible authority Marine Management Organization (MMO)

(13)

Severn Estuary Region Relevant marine plans Southwest Marine Inshore Marine

Plan

Welsh National Marine Plan

In order to develop marine plans, England and Wales have adopted different approaches. As described in the table, the Welsh Government (WG) has decided to produce a single Wales National Marine Plan (WNMP) which will cover all Welsh inshore and offshore marine areas. On the other side, English seas are split into 11 marine areas. The authority responsible for producing marine plans in England is the MMO, while in Wales, the Welsh Ministers are the marine planning authority for Welsh inshore and offshore areas.

Severn estuary region and Severn Estuary Partnership

To briefly introduce the SE region, the Severn estuary is the largest estuary in the UK. It has a 353 km long coastline and has the second highest tidal range in the world after the Bay of Fundy, Canada (SEP, 2012). The Severn estuary is well known in Britain for its multiple uses. The estuary is designated for nature conservation and the protection of international migratory birds and fish. It also comes under the Ramsar site (SEP, 2012). Moreover, it holds a position as a special protection area (SPA) under the EU birds directive and as a special area of conservation (SAC) under the EU habitats directive (Green and Smith 2009, p.4). There are a number of large ports on the Severn estuary, including the major ports of Bristol, Cardiff, Newport and Port Talbot, which handle around 20 million tons of cargo annually including dry and liquid bulk (Port Freight Statistics Report, 2015). The Severn estuary has a tidal range of 50 feet: therefore it is considered a potential site for the construction of tidal lagoons (SEP, 2012). Currently, the proposal for a Swansea tidal lagoon is under consideration in the Swansea and Cardiff coastal areas. Additionally, the Severn estuary region is known for its leisure and recreation industry, especially recreational boating activities (ASERA, 2015).

While considering these multiple uses of the estuary and the recent upsurge in marine planning in the UK, the question is how to facilitate the successful implementation of strategic marine plans (England and Wales) in the SE region. In this regard, the Severn Estuary Partnership plays an important role within the marine planning framework of the SE region. The partnership is led by local authorities and statutory agencies to work together to promote a

(14)

sustainable approach to the planning and management of the estuary (SEP, 2012). There are more than 60 coastal partnerships around the UK coast and most of them have 20 years of experience in coastal management (Stojanovic and Barker, 2008). These coastal partnerships come in a variety of arrangements to bring together interested stakeholders to promote the sustainable management of coastal areas, estuaries and firths (Stojanovic and Barker, 2008). Therefore, a recently imposed statutory obligation to develop marine plans in England (the southwest marine plan is concerned with the SE) and Wales (WNMP) requires the concerned authorities to engage relevant stakeholders as part of the marine planning process, whereas, when it comes to the SE region, the SEP is considered the main point of contact for local stakeholders.

Research question

The research question is derived from the network governance theoretical framework. Under this theoretical framework (Chapter 3), two levels of analysis have been described using the Provan et al. (2007) two perspective analyses of network governance. The two level of analysis are based upon the network level and the organizational level. In this study, the main research question is derived from the organizational level of analysis—i.e. it seeks to analyse the facilitator role of the Severn Estuary Partnership due to the developing marine planning process in Wales and England.

Level of analysis Main research question Sub-question Organizational level SEP How has the SEP facilitator role

shift with the developing marine planning process in England and Wales?

Does the SEP serve as a gatekeeper between the MMO, WG and Severn estuary relevant stakeholders?

The added value of this research

The research undertaken for this study has added value for further study of coastal partnerships. In the short term, the intermediate results of this study will be helpful for further research on the role of other coastal partnerships in the wider governance framework setting. Secondly, it will help in understanding the current status of the marine planning in Wales and

(15)

England with regard to the Severn estuary region and how those developing frameworks have modified the working of the SEP. Thirdly, this study has conceptualized UK marine planning under the network governance framework. This could further apply to other coastal partnerships and marine planning systems in other countries, especially within Europe. This study could help in providing a different discourse on the coastal partnerships under the network governance conceptual framework. In the longer term, the results of this research could inform current academic debates about the work of coastal partnerships.

Structure of the thesis

The remainder of the thesis is presented in four chapters.

Chapter 2 will critically discuss the background of coastal management in UK and provides the overall view of coastal partnership. This chapter will also discuss the geographical characteristics of Severn estuary and the introduction of SEP in detail.

Chapter 3 will set out the conceptual framework of the study by defining the network governance, discussing the various forms of network governance and the two levels of analysis from the network perspective.

Chapter 4 will explain and justify the choices made regarding the methodology, the philosophical approach of the study, the research strategy, the research design, data collection, data analysis, the limitations of the research methods and ethical considerations.

Chapter 5 will provide the analyses of the data collected. First it will discuss the developing marine planning in England and Wales. Then it will discuss the five organizational properties defined in conceptual framework in detail with regard to SEP.

Chapter 6 will summarise the analyses chapter and provide the answers to the questions posed in introduction. Recommendations will also be given in the chapter.

(16)

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

This chapter is divided into two main sections. The first section discusses the background of coastal management in the UK and the process of institutional restructuring which fosters a voluntarily approach to coastal management. The first section is further divided into two parts. The first part discusses the background—i.e. policy evolution in coastal management—while the second part provides an overview of coastal partnerships in the UK. It further discusses the working of partnerships from international to local level coastal partnerships operating within the UK. Moreover, it explains the different types of coastal partnership and, within these partnerships, the variations in organizational structure. The second section of this chapter discusses the physical characteristics of the Severn estuary, introducing the Severn Estuary Partnership and the evolution of the institutional setting around the estuary.

1) UK’s policy evolution in coastal management

The evolution of marine and coastal management in the UK has gone through many stages of institutional reform and various shifts in coastal management approach. These institutional changes were the result of internal governmental organizational restructuring as well as external, which includes an international up-surge in eco-system and environmental management and sustainable development. In terms of a shift in approach, initially marine spatial planning in the UK was referred to as coastal management. From the late 1960s to the end of the 1980s, the approach to coastal management in the UK was largely equated with a conservation approach (Ballinger, 1999). This conservation approach included nature and landscape protection. Especially after WWII, national concerns were stimulated due to unplanned development near coasts, which also impacted the environment around the coast. However, no significant initiative was undertaken with regard to specific coastal management. Instead, matters relevant to coasts were superseded by landscape protection and development planning (Ballinger, 1999).

Within the institutional setting of the UK, there was a shift from a traditional and technocratic approach to a more holistic and greener approach. The environmental management

(17)

sector in the UK underwent significant changes. In terms of its administrative response to environmental and coastal management, the key change was the transfer of responsibilities for coastal management from the Department of the Environment2 (DoE) to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food3 (MAFF). Another major change was with the establishment of the Environment Select Committee in 1979. The main task of this committee was ‘to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of DoE’ (Ballinger 1999, p.509). However, with the establishment of this committee, parliament was introduced to a varied and emerging range of environmental matters. Moreover, it also exerted pressure on parliament through public debates on environmental matters. This in turn produced new institutional bodies including the Ministerial Committee on the Environment; an environmental policy review group; a governmental panel on sustainable development; a UK roundtable on sustainable development and an advisory committee on business and environment. However, the workings of these institutional bodies largely remained criticized.

The most explicit reform in coastal management was started with the House of Commons Environment Select Committee report on coastal zone protection and planning (1992), which highlighted the inadequacies of organizational, policy and planning frameworks for coastal management. This report received a welcome response from the government and selective recommendations were accepted. These were the definition of the coastal zone, stating that the coastal zone should be treated as one integrated unit (Ballinger, 1999); environmental duties on port and harbours; and establishment of a coastal zone unit to oversee coastal zone policies. However, other recommendations relevant to the broadened scope of regional coastal groups— the governmental review of organizations to reduce duplication of responsibilities and the notion that responsibility for marine pollution should be invested in one lead body—were not accepted by the national government. However, this report was the starting point of the UK’s voluntary approach to ICZM.

In connection with this, another report from the Department of the Environment and the Welsh office’s planning document on coastal planning was also published in 1992 (Coastal Planning, 1992). This document provided guidelines for policy development to local authorities in England and Wales. Again, this policy document also implicitly required local authorities to

2

The Department of Environment has now turned into the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

(18)

integrate coastal planning into the ongoing land use development plans. Another important landmark for UK coastal management came from English Nature’s4 ‘Estuaries Initiatives’ (English Nature, 1992). The estuaries initiative led to the establishment of coastal partnerships in the UK, especially in England. Through the estuaries initiative, estuary-wide management plans were promoted and considered as the ‘first attempt to get to grips with the issues facing estuaries’ (Morris 2007, p.26). The initiative also had a budget of 250,000 pounds sterling per annum for five years (Morris, 2007) to initiate the process of estuary management planning. Therefore, to develop estuary management plans, a number of estuary partnerships were developed. In the early 90s, the main purpose of these partnerships was to consult stakeholders around estuaries in England. Usually a project officer was assigned for the management of this initiative. After that, they went to the possible stakeholders and groups around the estuary to invite them to become involved in specific coastal initiatives (Morris, 2008, p.26). The main funding for these initiatives/partnerships came from English Nature. The initiative also required that the estuary management plans be funded by a partnership of local stakeholders, which included local authorities, water companies, port authorities and major industries. However, the estuaries initiative was later cut short of funding for three years; consequently it ceased permanently. As a result, estuary management plans face implementation difficulty and have to secure funding from various sources. They have therefore started reaching out to relevant EU estuary projects.

However, during the consultation process surrounding stakeholders’ engagement in management plans, many lessons were learnt. Many of the stakeholders were not in agreement with the ‘consensus-building process’ and ‘failed to gain ownership’ (Morris 2008, p.28). However, on the other hand, these consultation processes united stakeholders in opposition. Although these estuary partnerships faced a multitude of problems, they often provided the first forum for local authorities and key stakeholders to talk to one another and therefore, in this regard, they were considered successful facilitators. Many of the coastal initiatives also ceased to exist because only the estuary management plan was required of them; however, others survived due to the physical and strategic nature of the estuary, and because stakeholders perceived the

4_{English Nature was the UK governmental body responsible for the conservation programme from 1991 to 2006. It} was merged with two other bodies (the Countryside Commission and the rural development service of Defra) to form Natural England in 2006.

(19)

need for such facilitator organizations (e.g. Solent Partnership, Thames Estuary Partnership and Severn Estuary Partnership). The following section will provide an overview of the coastal partnerships and their work in the UK.

Coastal partnerships in the UK: an overview

Since the early 1990s, over 60 coastal partnerships have been developed around the UK. As mentioned in the previous section, in the early 90s, English Nature’s ‘Estuaries Initiatives’ and Scottish National Heritage’s ‘Focus on Firth’ started to develop non-statutory participatory coastal management programmes (Fletcher 2002, p.232). However, many of the coastal partnerships kept on working after the termination of funding from ‘Estuaries Initiatives’. The strategies or plans produced by these coastal partnerships were ‘entirely voluntary and dependent upon the political will of stakeholders for successful implementation’ (Fletcher 2007, p.607). In other words, coastal partnerships provided an important mechanism to bring various stakeholders together to work towards integrated coastal management. These partnerships work closely with ‘coastal communities to foster a sense of ownership and stewardship over the coastal environment and its resources’ (Stojanovic and Barker 2008, p.345). There is a variety of coastal initiatives around the UK, based on their distinct geographical location. Table 2 highlights the range of groups, extending from international networks to those at the regional and local level (Fletcher, 2002).

Table 2: Types of coastal group operating within the UK (source: Fletcher, 2002) Type of voluntary coastal

group

Description Examples

International Functions mainly limited to networking and international lobbying

The Coastal Union (EUCC)

National: governmental Functions to enhance co-ordination at the national level

English Coastal Forum; Welsh Coastal Forum

National: non-governmental National networking and training; limited lobbying role

CoastNet, National Coasts and Estuaries Advisory Group (NCEAG)

Regional sea Functions to bring together those with an interest in offshore resource conservation and use

(20)

Regional/local single sector Facilitates information sharing, resource management and policy formulation in the distinct sector

SCOPAC (location: south of England; function: coastal defence); Severn estuary conservation group (function: conservation)

CPs (regional/local multi-sector)

Functions to share information, and generate and implement policy on the basis of sustainable multiple use of resources

Severn Estuary Partnership; Dorset Coast Forum; Solent Forum

Another driving force behind coastal partnerships in the UK is the European Commission influence on the coastal management framework. In the context of ICZM, the EC recommends that member states should promote bottom-up initiatives in the integrated management of the coastal zone and its resources (European Commission, 2002). There are a number of EC recommendations which implicitly encourage member states to involve stakeholders in all levels of spatial planning. For example, the EC joint statement on wildlife interest encourages stakeholder engagement early on in the process (European Commission, 2002). Therefore, stakeholders relevant to wildlife and nature around the estuary also need to be included in the marine planning process. In this respect, the UK government issued a commitment to full stakeholder involvement in coastal and marine planning (Fletcher, 2007). Therefore, there are various implicit ways at the governmental level and European Commission directives that encouraged coastal partnerships to continue working even when they were facing funding problems. Many of the coastal partnerships in the UK acquired project funding: for example, the Severn Estuary Partnership worked on the DeltaNet project (INTERREG IVC) and IMCORE with INTERREG IVB funding.

There is variation within the working of local coastal partnerships and coastal groups. A number of coastal partnerships are more sectoral i.e. flood and coastal defense, conservations groups: these include coastal groups or management scheme groups for European marine sites. The Severn estuary region holds a number of European marine sites, including special protection areas (SPA) and special conservation areas (SCA). Therefore, it is subject to a number of management groups other than the SEP to manage activities around the Severn estuary. The coastal groups and other European marine site groups relevant to the Severn estuary are

(21)

explained in detail in the third section. The table below explains the voluntary coastal group and partnership types.

Table 3. Coastal groups and partnerships types (source: Stojanovic and Barker, 2008)

Coastal initiatives Categories defined by the English coastal partnership working group

Coastal partnership (CP) Coastal (including estuary) partnership or forum bringing together all sectors to advocate sustainable management of a coastal area based on ICM principles.

Area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) / Heritage coast (HC)

AONB/HC is a partnership or initiative set up to manage a designated landscape in a coastal zone.

European marine site (EMS) EMS is an initiative set up to prepare and implement an EMS management for the designated special protection area / special area of conservation.

Marine National Park (MNP) / Voluntary Marine nature reserve (VMNR)

MNP or VMNR is set up to manage or protect an offshore park, reserve or protected area.

Coastal group (CG) Coastal groups assist the production of shoreline management plans (SMPs) for flood and coastal erosion risk management.

Other similar initiative A variety of other initiatives include local strategies for the coast and ad hoc partnerships based on topics such as beach care, litter or marine wildlife.

Additionally, coastal partnerships follow various types of organizational structure. The three most common organizational structures are forum based, steering group and topic group (Fletcher, 2003). A forum based coastal partnership usually meets once or twice a year and is

(22)

generally open to the public; it has a larger membership than the other two types of organizational structure. The number of stakeholders involved in this forum is usually between 80 and 300. Steering groups usually involve a committee of 10 to 25 members. They are involved in the daily operation of the partnership. However, a project officer has financial control and undertakes the strategic management of the coastal partnership. The last organization structure is the topic group. These groups are basically set up to address a number of issues around the estuary. Their size is varied, but usually involves 10 to 15 members and is composed of individuals with a shared common interest (Fletcher, 2003). A topic group, as explained by Fletcher (2003), is formed to address a specific issue for a specific location.

Various academic researches on coastal partnerships show the importance of these partnerships in filling the gap between government and local level stakeholders. Coastal partnerships are formed to provide opportunities to various coastal stakeholders to share their views and concerns related to marine management. These partnerships have remained successful in filling the vacuum in strategic level coastal policy and are considered as the main stimulus for integrated coastal management at a sub-national level (Fletcher, 2003). Studies (Fletcher, 2003; Stojanovic and Barker, 2008) show that, in the UK, coastal partnerships hold significant importance in developing area based strategies, which is helpful in an integrated coastal management process, although the strategies are not legally binding.

These partnerships are considered as the way forward in UK coastal management, especially on a sub-national level. With regard to their working efficiency, the coastal partnerships are supported and are made up of interested stakeholders. Therefore, the representation of stakeholders within coastal partnerships is of particular importance. Stakeholders within a coastal partnership represent their constituency and its related interests; therefore, the plans developed within a coastal partnership are considerably influenced by stakeholders and their constituency. The active participation of stakeholders in the coastal partnership decision making process is also the very basis of an integrated coastal management process.

Various achievements and uses of coastal initiatives have been acknowledged in scholarly discussion. Those benefits of coastal partnerships are measured according to soft evidences at the local policy management level. These benefits include changes in the approach

(23)

towards policy making through the involvement of local stakeholders. With this in mind, Stojanovic and Ballinger (2009) provided nine mechanisms and processes of coastal partnerships, extracted from EU ICZM principles. These nine mechanisms and processes are comprehensive, participatory, co-operative, contingent, precautionary, long term, incremental, focused and adaptive approaches to coastal initiatives. Stojanovic and Barker (2008) presented similar benefits of coastal partnerships. They defined these benefits on the basis of ‘improved governance’, ‘changes in attitudes and understanding that they create’, and ‘on the ground actions which they deliver that contribute to coastal sustainability’. However, they concluded that coastal partnerships will hold a marginal role unless they are embedded within the evolving institutional framework. This point is discussed in Chapter 5 through the results obtained from interviews, and while applying the conceptual framework developed in Chapter 2.

2) SEVERN ESTUARY

This second section of this chapter will look in the physical and geographical feathers of the Severn estuary. This section will also discuss the establishment of Severn Estuary Partnership and institutional setting around Severn estuary.

Geographical characteristics of the Severn estuary

The Severn estuary is renowned in Britain for its multiple uses. The estuary has been designated an area for nature conservation and for the protection of international migratory birds and fish. Moreover, the Severn estuary is a recognised Ramsar site (a wetland of international importance). It is home to migratory birds in winter. Therefore it is designated a special protection area (SPA) according to the EU conservation of birds directive (2009/147/EC). Additionally, it is a special area of conservation under the EU habitats directive (92/43/EC), as the estuary contains important habitats which are threatened within the European context (Knowles and Myatt-Bell, 2001). There are a number of large ports on the estuary, including the major ports of Bristol, Cardiff, Newport and Port Talbot, which handle around 20 million tonnes of cargo annually, including dry and liquid bulk (Port Freight Statistics Report, 2015). The Severn estuary has a tidal range of 50 feet; therefore it is considered a potential site for the construction of tidal lagoons: a proposal for a Swansea tidal lagoon is now under consideration for the Swansea and Cardiff coastal area. The Severn estuary is also known for its leisure and

(24)

recreational industry—for example, recreational boating activities (ASERA, 2015). The characteristics of the Severn estuary are as follows;

Table 4: Characteristics of the Severn estuary (source: Zahra, 2016) Characteristics Length of

the coast, included

in the SEP area

tidal range Management issues

Physical Human

Severn estuary

Estuary Mainly rural areas, but majors cities attached to it—e.g. Cardiff, Bristol and

Newport. Human population: 1,039,000 353km5 Barry: 10m Avonmouth: 14m Maintaining special protection area; dredging and port operations; coastal development; recreational boating on Severn estuary

Severn Estuary Partnership (SEP)

Various factors have been documented regarding the creation of the Severn Estuary Partnership. When in the early 80s the UK government initially decided to build the barrage on the Severn estuary, it generated concern in various local and national organizations (Ballinger and Stojanovic, 2010). Hence it was realized that a common platform should be developed to facilitate sharing and working together. The idea for the common platform gained support when

(25)

the South Glamorgan6 economics department attended the Les Esturiales meeting in France (Knowles and Myatt-Bell, 2001). Les Esturiales is a European partnership formed in 1990, of regional authorities and municipalities with responsibility for the sustainable management of several European estuaries (Severn Estuary, 2012). The 1993 Les Esturiales charter identifies the unique and distinctive characteristics of estuaries around Europe. It highlights the wide range of inter-related coastal problems and stress that ‘the need for management group to encourage a partnership of all those with an interest in the estuary, including ports, commercials and recreational interests, local authorities and government departments and agencies’ (Knowles and Myatt-Bell 2001, p.145). In 1992, recommendations from English Nature’s Estuaries Initiatives were also published: these recommendations called for estuary management plans around all English coasts. Therefore, the formation of the Severn Estuary Partnership is primarily the result of these two recommendations. Several local authorities, including South Glamorgan County Council, took the lead role and formed a partnership with Avon County Council, the countryside council for Wales, the National Rivers Authority and Cardiff University (Knowles and Myatt-Bell, 2001). The Severn Estuary Partnership is hosted by Cardiff University. It has an estuary-wide remit, making it a cross-border coastal partnership. The partnership includes a estuary-wide variety of organizations and individuals who have declared their interest in the sustainable development of the Severn estuary (DeltaNet, 2011). Figure 1 shows the organizational boundaries of the SEP and the local authorities fall within the boundary.

6_{South Glamorgan was reorganized under the local government act of 1972 and the administration was sub-divided} into the Vale of Glamorgan and Cardiff Council.

(26)

Figure `1: SEP organizational boundary (source: Hoare, 2001)

In Figure1, the local authorities involved with SEP have been shown. The local authorities from English side of the estuary are; Gloucestershire County Council, Gloucester City Council, Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council, Bristol City Council and Stroud District Council are involved with the SEP. On the Welsh side, Cardiff Council, Newport City Council, Forest of Dean District Council and Monmouthshire City Council are involved with SEP. Apart from local councils and authorities regional agencies For example Environmental Agency (England), Natural England and Natural Resource Wales are also involved with SEP. These are the main funding partners of the SEP, but SEP has a very broad remit and is also involved with various non-statutory organizations.

(27)

The SEP encourages an integrated and co-ordinated approach among its stakeholders towards the planning of the Seven Estuary. The aim of the SEP, according to its business plan (2006–2009), is ‘to bring together all those involved in the development, management and use of the estuary within a framework which encourages the integration of their interests and responsibilities to achieve common objectives’ (SEP business plan 2006, p.1). It maintains a diverse number of roles around the estuary, which include core services (Coastal Partnership Network, 2011). The core services of the SEP include: 1) stakeholder engagement; 2) provision of network opportunities; 3) facilitation of diverse issues around the Severn estuary; 4) promotion of collaborative working; 5) provision of a central point of contact for local authorities around the estuary; and 6) informing coastal and maritime planning, policy, legislation and strategy. It has maintained a neutral position among its stakeholder representation—i.e. it does not represent a particular set of interests or stakeholders. The working of the SEP involves a diverse number of stakeholders, from local councils to the national government of Wales and Defra, from ports and harbours to the private sector; it also includes environmental and recreational groups. The organizational structure of the SEP is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Organizational structure of SEP (Modified from Knowles and Myatt-Bell, 2001)

The SEP’s organizational structure is based upon a management group and an SEP project officer. The SEP management group is comprised of the funding partners and plays an important role in deciding the future course of the partnership. The management group (MG) is

(28)

comprised of local authorities (as mentioned above) and non-departmental public body representatives—for example, the Natural England, Environmental Agency and Natural Resource Wales. The project manager is the main administrative person in the SEP and usually holds the position for 12 to 24 months. The project manager is accountable to the management group in terms of the operational working of the SEP. The project officer also maintains communication and consulting links with every organizational body in the estuary region. Additionally, the coordination and dissemination of information is the responsibility of the project manager. The process of dissemination of information to estuary-wide stakeholders encourages various non-governmental stakeholders to join the partnership through a formal membership process. Therefore, the SEP management group changes often. The SEP working group is drawn from the MG and works closely with the project officer. Members of the working group usually provide advice, and commit time and resources to certain projects. Working group members usually hold a full time post in their respective organizations in addition to their work with the working group, which is draw from the management group of the various projects.

Institutional setting around Severn Estuary

The institutional setting around Severn estuary has been evolved quite a lot since the establishment of SEP in 1995. Even after the marine planning process begin n national level, two new regional institutional has been emerged (i.e. MMO and WG) in order develop national level marine plans in respective devolved administrations. The table below shows the roles and responsibilities of the major organizations involved in management of the Severn estuary. Table 7 describes the organizational setting before the national marine planning process began in the UK (Knowles, and Myatt-Bell, 2001).

Table 5: Institutional setting around Severn estuary region (Source: Knowles and Myatt-Bell 2002, p.140) Organizational settings around the Severn

estuary

Roles and responsibilities

National

Crown Estate Commission National foreshore and seabed is the property of the Crown. The estate owns about 50% of the Severn estuary foreshore.

(29)

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Conservation of fish stocks in UK waters, shoreline management, dumping at sea and coastal environmental quality.

National Assembly for Wales Wide range of statutory responsibilities, including water adjacent to the coast of Wales.

Regional (England and Wales)

Environmental Agency Pollution control and water quality management, flood defence management, fisheries management.

Water companies Ensure adequate water resources are available to meet consumer demands, effluent treatment.

English Nature Government’s statutory advisor on nature

conservation in England.

Countryside council for Wales Statutory adviser on nature conservation, landscape and access in Wales

CADW/English Heritage Responsibility for marine archaeology and historic wrecks.

Wales and England’s Sport Council, tourist boards Government Office for the South West

Local

NGO conservation interests Valuable role in coastal management through site management and acquisition.

Local government (county councils / district councils / unitary authorities)

Preparation of local development plans to guide and control physical development of land.

Port and harbour authorities Maintenance of channels to dock entrances by dredging, commercial interest in markets, navigation aid.

(30)

Severn Estuary coastal cell groups Development of shoreline management plans.7

Private landowners Coastal defences, drainage and conservation of their land.

Drainage boards Drainage and water resources.

The above table presents the statutory and non-statutory organizations around the Severn estuary and their responsibilities around the estuary up to 2001. The various agencies and organizations relevant to the Severn estuary region have been divided into national, regional and local level agencies. However, there have been certain changes in the institutional structure since 2001. On the national level, MAFF was merged with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in 2001. Defra is responsible for British government policy in a number of sectors, including biodiversity, conservation, food, agriculture, air quality and marine policy. Defra has key partnerships which assist in implementing a number of policies. With regard to marine planning, Defra’s key partners are the Environmental Agency, Natural England and the Marine Management Organization on the regional level. The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for producing a marine plan for Welsh water (including the Severn estuary). At the regional level of institutional settings, in England especially the MMO has been developed. The MMO is the main organizational body for producing marine plans for English waters; this therefore includes the English side of the Severn estuary. Another major change at the regional level is the merger of English Nature with Natural England (NE). Formed in 2006, Natural England is a non-departmental public body and is independent of government, formed by merging English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service (a functional transfer from Defra). The responsibilities of NE include designating areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest, and wildlife and habitat conservation. The agency is also responsible for providing grants to numerous schemes and frameworks relevant to nature conservation. Hence, NE is also implicitly involved in the Severn estuary region for the protection of nature. On the Welsh side, Natural Resource Wales (NWS) has been developed at the regional level. It was formed in 2013 with the merger of the

7

Shoreline management plans provides a strategic framework for decisions relating to the management of coastal defences along the specified lengths of coast.

(31)

Countryside Council for Wales, the Environmental Agency Wales and the Forestry Commission Wales. NRW is responsible for numerous types of regulatory regime in which marine licensing and the waste industry (storage, treatment and disposal) for Welsh waters are included. Hence NRW is also involved in the Welsh side of the Severn estuary. The agency also contributes to SEP funding. Lastly, on a local level, much of the institutional setting remains the same.

The next chapter of the thesis will discussed the conceptual framework developed to analysed the shift in working of SEP due to national marine process began in devolved administrations.

(32)

CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK EXTRACTED FROM NETWORK GOVERNANCE

The main purpose of this chapter is to explain what network governance is and how it is helpful in positioning the SEP within the wider developing marine planning set-up. This chapter elaborates on selective components of network governance theory to develop a suitable framework for the analysis in Chapter 5 and the methodology framework in Chapter 4. Those selective components are mainly extracted from Proven and Kenis (2008) articulation of network governance, in which a view of governance of the organizational network has been proposed.

This chapter is divided into two main parts. The first part of the chapter is based upon a general discussion of network governance, which consists of a definition of the network governance theory; a comparison of network governance with other similar governance paradigms (resource governance and adaptive governance); and the use of network governance in various academic disciplines. The second part of the chapter is based upon developing the conceptual framework for this research study. The second section is sub-divided further into two parts: the first part will explain the three forms of network governance which are useful in setting the basis for identifying which form of network governance is most relevant to the research questions posed in Chapter 1; the second part explains the two analysis perspective within network governance. At the end of this chapter, the conceptual framework is developed.

Defining network governance

The basic understanding of network governance, according to Provan and Kenis (2008), is based on ‘two relatively vague and slippery’ concepts—i.e. network and governance. The terms network and governance both have many interpretations. The notion of governance can ‘refer to non-hierarchical attempts of governments in order to bring coordination between public and private interests, actions and resources’; meanwhile, network is ‘a notion equally popular and can enter into various other conceptual constellations’ (Torfing 2005, p. 306)—for example, communication networks, social networks or professional networks. However, network governance is a particular type of network and a particular form of governance where various actors or groups are involved to collaborate on particular policy implementation (Torfing, 2005). The network can be based upon groups of three or more autonomous organizations. Therefore, in this research, the network is based upon the Severn estuary stakeholders who come together to

(33)

form the SEP to collaborate on integrated coastal management, thus forming a non-hierarchical network.

A definition of network governance has been extracted from Torfing (2005) who described network governance in various points and these points have combined to ‘capture the essence of that which is commonly referred to by the notion of governance networks’ (Torfing 2005, p. 307). Hence network governance is defined as;

The network governance defined as the formation of relatively interdependent actors, but operationally autonomous entities. The interaction among actors is based upon achieving specific goals through negotiations and deliberations in a relatively institutionalized framework setting where knowledge, norms and values are articulated, having the element of self-regulating competence and demonstrating a particular stake in networking. The actors involved must have the capacity and resources to contribute and competencies to value other actors involved.

The significance of the network governance conceptual framework in delivering public services has been agreed by various public management scholars (Herranz, 2007; Klijn and Koppenjan, 2012). This is due to the fragmentation of power where ‘many public policies and programmes cannot be administered and delivered by a single agency but are rather often coordinated by multiagency agreements, partnerships, collaborative and networks involving both governmental and non-governmental organizations’ (Herranz 2007, p.2). Moreover, the application of network governance in analysis of the Severn Estuary Partnership is considered suitable due to its structural embeddedness with all the SE stakeholders in the SE region. Furthermore, while using the selective forms of network governance, it has been observed that NG has the capacity to articulate complex systems at the public or organizational level of administration, where increasing fragmentation of authority has been observed.

Other similar governance frameworks have been developed which also try to simplify the management of natural resources, such as resource governance and adaptive governance regimes (Bodin and Crona, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). The resource governance regime revolves around the natural resource in focus—for example, how to prevent and sustain natural resources in complex institutional settings (Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Perreault, 2006). The resource governance

(34)

regime mostly revolves around technological infrastructure and other human artefacts (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Secondly, adaptive governance is based upon the adaptation capacity of the stakeholders at times of abrupt change within a certain system. It mostly deals with the adaptation capacity and management of the systems, quite similar to transition management (Folke, 2005); hence it comes under a different type of theoretical paradigm. Moreover, the adaptive governance framework implicitly focuses on a certain network adapting to change, which is not the focus of this study. This study is focused upon the organizational level of management, where the SEP is already in place and the main purpose of this and similar partnerships is to provide an integrated approach to coastal management of marine planning in the SE region, hence avoiding any sudden changes to the marine planning process.

The two above mentioned governance regimes provide the backdrop for a wider governance level of ecosystem management, but they are not appropriate for a framework to provide the organizational level of management. Both the above mentioned governance regimes explain more at an abstract level of management, but this often involves the interactions of various actors, whether for capacity development or managing a particular resource. However, in the network governance framework, the particular focus is upon the stakeholders’ involvement and forming a network governance where that particular network will be governed under the mutually constructed organization, or where the network is formed such that each member of the network is connected with any other member of the network, or where there is a highly centralized network in which members of the network are connected through one organization and not independently.

Additionally, even in the resource governance regime and adaptive governance, the involvement of stakeholders in shaping and designing policies is implicitly acknowledged but there is a lack of explanation as to how which that can be done. In Figure 1, the process of ecosystem management under the resource governance regime also shows stakeholder networking around the resource, while network governance provides a similar framework, making such a stakeholder network govern through organizational settings (see Figure 3 below).

(35)

Figure 3 represents the different sectors of society which are connected through natural resources. The red dots represent the organizations or persons in each sector and their relational connection with other organizations or persons in other sectors through common resource management.

The literature on NG is now quite extensive. Initially, it was limited to the organizational field of study—i.e. more relevant to corporate business studies—but it now spans other disciplines, which include, but are not limited to, healthcare, strategic management, public administration, communications, sociology and political debates (Proven and Fish, 2007; Sørensen and Torfing, 2016). To date, network governance has mostly been mentioned in terms of market, state and organizational settings due to the requirement for interconnectivity in these fields. Network governance has also entered into academic debates about environmental management, climate adaptation and urban planning processes, including ecosystem services and low carbon transmissions (Ernstson et al., 2010; Juhola and Westerhoff, 2011; Khan, 2013; Lutt et al., 2012; Robin and Pattison, 2011). On the other hand, much of the literature on network governance is dedicated to the simplification, development and evolution of network governance theory (Bevir and Rhodes, 2006; Jones et al., 1997; Klijn and Koppenjan, 2012; Torfing, 2005) and this scholarly literature has been used to develop the conceptual framework of this study.

(36)

However, NG has been developed into a fully-fledged theoretical concept (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2012). The metaphoric elasticity of network governance—i.e. its capacity to fit into various disciplines while choosing the selective components of the conceptual framework—is also applicable in political aspects, where formal governmental institutions are absent but governance is nevertheless required. This is true of this study, where informal networking of local governmental authorities is required for integrated marine planning and the need to connect with local stakeholders or members of society.

Forms of network governance

In order to answer the research question—i.e. to analyse the role shift of the SEP with the developing marine planning framework around the Severn estuary—it is important to understand what kind of network is formed around the Severn estuary. In this respect, three forms of network governance have been taken from Proven and Keith’s (2008) article ‘Modes of network governance: Structure, management and effectiveness’.

Provan and Keith (2008) describe two distinct forms of network governance—i.e. any network ‘may or may not be brokered’ (p.233). The ‘not brokered’ network includes any small or large network completely governed by the organizations that comprise the network, and every organization in that network will interact with every other organization: governance of this network is known as shared governance. On the other hand, a network can be highly brokered in its governance and this can occur within or be caused by one organization: that network can be called a highly centralized network. The second distinction regarding network governance is based upon the brokered network. In this form of network governance, the focus is on whether the network is participant governed or externally governed. In participant governed networks, the network is governed by the participants themselves (again shared). In externally governed networks, a single organization takes the role of the lead organization; this type of governance is more similar to a top-down approach. Another form of brokered network is the network administrative organization (NAO). This form of governance is developed ‘voluntarily by network members or mandated as part of the network formation process’ (Provan and Keith 2008, p.236). The figure below illustrates these three forms of network governance.

(37)

As shown in Figure 4, the participant governed network is governed by network members themselves with no separate or unique governance authority. This form of governance is highly decentralized and shared among its members, whereas the lead organization network can be highly centralized and often has a top-down approach in public policy fields. This form of network governance often bears the cost of network administration and supplies the funding. A network administrative organization (NAO) develops through the members of the network. In the NAO, members of the network still interact with one another (the dotted line represents their links with each other), but the NAO is basically a network broker ‘which plays the key role in coordinating and sustaining the network’ (Provan and Kenis 2008, p.236). An NAO can consist of a single individual or in the form of a formal organization comprising a project manager and other operating staff. The latter form is ‘used as a mechanism for enhancing the network legitimacy; dealing with unique and complex network-level problems and issues; reducing the complexity of shared governance’ (Proven and Keith 2008, p.236). Such an administrative body is usually established locally for the purpose of accomplishing particular goals. Therefore, in this study, the third form of network governance has been identified with the Severn Estuary Partnership, since the SEP is a voluntary initiative by local councils around the Severn estuary but holds a separate administrative entity. Therefore, the Severn Estuary Partnership is an NAO.

Understanding Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design for Improving Biodiversity Conservation in Cities: Case study of UK

The Role of Severn Estuary Partnership in Emerging

Marine Planning in England and Wales

Table of Contents